XXI International CIPA Symposium, 01-06 October 2007, Athens, Greece
ARTISTIC HERITAGE: FROM KNOWLEDGE TO VALORISATION
Ernesto Di Natale a, Fulvio Lanzarone b
a
Assistant Professor at the Architecture Department in Palermo, (e-mail: dinatale@unipa.it);
Master of Safeguarding and Fruition of Antique Contexts. Teacher on annual contract
Facoltà di Architettura, Palermo, Italy. (e-mail:arch.lanzarone@virgilio.it)
b
Commission "Archaeology & Conservation 2/3"
KEY WORDS: Preservation, Archaeology, Architecture, Fruition, Valorisation
ABSTRACT:
After stressing the importance of knowledge and listing the different phases regarding the preservation and valorisation of artistic
heritage, the authors have analysed the inherent problems of preserving the integrity and identity of a particular object of cultural
heritage, also from a legislative point of view (from national law n. 1089 of 1939 to the recent New Code for Cultural Heritage and
Environment of 2004).
1. MANUSCRIPT
1.1 Introduction
In the context of the current cultural and scientific debate, the
themes of knowledge and valorisation of objects of Cultural
Heritage are characterised by their polyhedric aspects resulting
from historic, political and legislative influences that vary from
country to country and which make their interpretation
difficult.
In recent years in Italy, regulations in the field of Cultural
Heritage have changed significantly both where the protection
of such objects are concerned and in terms of the
organisational and functional management of architectural and
archaeological sites.
By the term heritage we generally refer to something which,
thanks to its value, should be preserved. Thus, by the
expression Cultural Heritage we are referring to all those manmade objects in a certain territory that provide information
about the past and which, therefore, make it possible have
knowledge about and trace the intellectual, moral and civil
development of mankind.
A careful analysis is therefore necessary if we are to fully
understand the numerous interpretations made by the wide
variety of specialists of differing disciplines working in the
sector. For example, in the field of archaeological sites, experts
emphasize the concept of the conservational process which
includes three important phases: knowledge, preservation and
management, this latter comprising, amongst others, the
problems of fruition and valorisation.
2. SURVEYS
As mentioned above, surveys are the first phase of any
intervention. They make it possible to obtain a real
understanding of the object of cultural heritage in question, also
through a comparative evaluation of its various aspects
(historical, architectonic, metric-geometric, typological,
technological, etc.). The result is a global understanding of the
object under examination and this will be fundamental in the
subsequent phases of the intervention.
Due to the complex, inter-disciplinary nature of the initial
survey, it will generally be carried out in a series of phases, a
cognitive process made up of a sequence of moments and a
succession of facts which have a common aim.
2.1 Historical analyses
The historical analysis is the basis for all subsequent studies and
includes historical-philological elements from various sources
(documentary, literary, iconographic, bibliographic, archives,
etc.). The aim is to identify the various stratifications present in
a specific cultural heritage site and/or object.
From the historical analysis it is possible to obtain in-depth
knowledge of the Architectonic Object also in terms of its social
context. In substance, the use of these integrated,
interdisciplinary sources, including documents and images from
the past, makes it possible to identify the object’s genesis.
This important survey also makes it possible to discover the
origins of the cultural object and to identify and assess the
maintenance and transformations it has undergone over the
years. However, not always does the information from
documents equate with reality and so only through a direct
reading of the object is it possible to confirm or negate the
information gleaned from the historical analysis.
2.2 Technological analyses
As mentioned above, it is necessary to carry out a
technological survey to study, as Alberto Sposito says, the
processes of formation and transformation of the object,
analyses, measurements, comparisons and systems the
materials1 Thus, starting from the supposition that to Recover
is to Know, it is important to obtain a set of data inherent to the
specific nature of the materials and to the static mechanisms
present in the cultural heritage object under study. This
information will become fundamental for the subsequent
analysis of the architectonic structure, during which it will be
1
Alberto SPOSITO, Beni archeologici: Conoscenza,
Conservazione, Gestione, in Sylloge Archeologica, Università
degli Studi di Palermo, DPCE, Palermo, 1999, p. 11.
XXI International CIPA Symposium, 01-06 October 2007, Athens, Greece
possible to identify the causes of any degradation or pathologies
of the material in question.
Knowledge of the configurative and material structure is
essentially obtained through a survey during which a set of data
are obtained using analytical methods based on specific
procedures and techniques that depend on the type and
importance of the material and on the level of precision
required. The data obtained is recorded and transformed into
graphs. The survey, therefore, must be carried out in accordance
with specific aims and will include metric-geometric,
technological and diagnostic elements.
In the first phase, a general inspection can provide the overall
direction of the survey and give indications to define a valid
support for the operations and phases of analysis regarding the
importance of the organism. Furthermore, this preliminary
survey makes it possible to choose the most suitable method to
be implemented and to identify the best procedures and the
tools for the work to be carried out in accordance with the
requirements of the place in question.
This first contact with the object provides a direct means of
understanding and evaluating the elements making up the object
and these will subsequently be studied in greater detail. The
aim, therefore of the initial inspection is to prepare an idea of
the whole, examining the object in all its various aspects.
A careful survey must, therefore, provide a set of information
that can be articulated and placed in a hierarchy of importance
making it possible to set up a process that moves from the
general to the specific and vice versa.
Through the use of specific procedures and techniques a
suitable set of criteria will be established for the checking and
collecting data.
To summarize, the function of the survey is not only to
collect and record information, but also, and most importantly,
to select, interpret and to transfer all the necessary data. In this
sense it is absolutely essential that those working on the project
have a profound and meticulous perceptive sensitivity to the
conditions outlined above.
3. PRESERVATION
The term preservation includes all actions whose aim is to
protect the cultural object throughout time. By its nature, the
material tends to change fairly quickly and so conservation may
also be seen as a useful means of safeguarding the cultural and
material advantages that derive from the object in question. This
consists primarily in preventative operations aimed at
decreasing environmental damage to the object caused by
chemical, physical and biological phenomena.
Italy was one of the first European nations to understand that its
cultural history was a patrimony to be safeguarded. Indeed, the
concept of “cultural heritage (…) owes much to the culture of
preservation developed in individual Italian states before
unification and later in united Italy: the fact that our culture of
preservation was and, to a certain extent, still is, the richest and
most advanced in the world implies that the preservation of our
cultural heritage is a high priority of the State, which sees it as
property of all citizens”2.
Over the years, the concept of heritage has widened. Indeed,
while previously it was a term applied to single objects, today it
has assumed a “new dimension: it includes not only isolated
buildings of an enormous value with their surrounding
2
Salvatore SETTIS, Italia S.p.A. l’assalto al patrimonio
culturale, Einaudi, Torino, 2002, p. 5.
environment but also secondary buildings diffused over the
whole territory”3.
Also at a legislative level, in the last century, there was an
important conceptual evolution. Indeed, while law n. 1089 of
1939 was entitled “Safeguarding objects of artistic and historic
interest”, today the term things has been substituted by the more
significant term Cultural Heritage.
The most correct definition of cultural heritage was given by
the Franceschini Study Commission, set up with 1. 23
April1964, n. 310: material testimonies to civilisation.
Apart from this, in 1968 the Papaldo Commission drafted a law
whose object was to guarantee the safeguarding and
valorisation of cultural heritage. The establishment of these two
Commissions was of fundamental importance as they served to
initiate a widespread, nationwide debate which, towards the end
of the 1970s, resulted in the school of thought that cultural
heritage should be both safeguarded and used, thus appreciating
both its material and immaterial qualities.
The legislative decree of 25th October 1999 n. 490
(Consolidated Act for Arts and the Environment)), also
highlighted the importance of preservation. Indeed, in article 21,
entitled Preservation Obligations a set of regulations for
safeguarding cultural heritage were laid down:
“1) Objects of cultural heritage may not be demolished or
modified without the authorisation of the Ministry.
2) Nor may they be used for activities that are incompatible
with their historic or artistic character or any other
activities that may put their conservation or integrity at
risk.
3) Collections must not, for any reason, be dismantled
without the authorisation subject of point 1)”.
All this demonstrates very clearly that, in order to be preserved,
objects of cultural heritage must be managed and safeguarded.
Art. 148 of L.D. 31st March 1998, n. 112 defines this
management as “the activity which aims, through the
employment of human and material resources, to ensure the
fruition of objects of cultural and environmental heritage, while
at the same time guaranteeing their protection and valorisation”.
The same article defines safeguarding as “any activity that aims
to understand, conserve and protect objects of cultural and
environmental heritage”.
Table 1 shows a summary of the evolution of Italian legislation
regarding the concept of safeguarding from the last century to
the present.
From this table we can see how, today, the concept of
safeguarding has been enriched by new, more important
definitions which deal not only with safeguarding and protection
but which also lay down a real policy for cultural heritage,
which is defined as a valuable asset that belongs to everyone
and which must be protected if its historic memory is to be
preserved. The responsible organisations must, as a
consequence, lay down all the necessary regulations and actions
to guarantee the protection of our cultural heritage and the
public fruition of the same.
With this in mind L.D. n. 112 of 1998 specifies that the
responsibility for managing cultural heritage lies, not only with
the State (which is responsible for its safeguarding), but also
with Regional, Provincial and Local Governments and
mountain communities. As a consequence, these organisations
must provide a series of museum services for the protection and
promotion of objects of cultural heritage. The same decree
defines promotion as being “any activity aimed at inspiring and
supporting cultural activities”.
3
Alberto SPOSITO, op. cit., pp. 11-12
XXI International CIPA Symposium, 01-06 October 2007, Athens, Greece
knowledge and conservation of cultural and environmental
heritage and which will increase its fruition”. This last aspect is
inextricably linked to the problem of valorisation, considered as
“the moment of social truth when the valorisation project
allows, enables or simplifies the transmission of the historic
value of the object to the general public”6.
“Fruition also offers some important points for consideration
(table 2). Indeed, while fruition may be a moment of pleasure,
cultural enrichment, etc. it can also present numerous problems
of a different nature linked both to the necessity guaranteeing
that it is open to all (including persons of reduced mobility - art.
2 of M.D. n. 236 of 1989), and to the fact that the objects in
question are subject to degradation over time. This latter
phenomenon has numerous, often inter-connected, causes:
mankind’s disregard and/or pollution, humidity, dust and many
other alterations produced by visitors, not to mention vandalism
or theft. These considerations demonstrate that through its
“fruition” of the object in question, the public may cause
damage.
Table 14
In more detail, it may help to highlight that “protection regards
the maintenance and restoration of the integrity of individual
pieces and / or the whole, while promotion concerns the
valorisation of the object, employing the most suitable methods
to make public fruition of it possible”5.
4. VALORISATION
As we have already seen, objects of cultural heritage first need
to be studied, then preserved and finally valorised. This is
because our cultural heritage is the depository of values that
must be available to the community. Valorisation has a complex
meaning, as we are not just dealing with the simple activity of
safeguarding and conserving an object, but also with possibility
of obtaining cultural and economic benefits from it.
Valorisation consists, therefore, in making an object that has
been received, interpreted, and safeguarded available for
everyone – culture for the public. However, at the same time it
is a source of economic development for the territory in which
it is located. Objects of cultural patrimony have a significant
social and economic value which may vary depending on the
attention it is given by society.
In conformity with art. 148 of L.D. 112/98, valorisation is
also defined as “any activity that aims to improve the
4
Fulvio LANZARONE, Ernesto DI NATALE, “Problems of
preservation and fruition in archaeological sites” Atti, al
International Conference on VULNERABILITY OF 02TH
CENTURY CULTURAL HERITAGE TO HEZARDS AND
PREVENTION MEASURES, promossa da CICOP Federation,
UNESCO, Archeological Istitute of Aegean Studies,
Municipalità of Kos, Aegean University; Kos 3-4-5 October
2005. Pubblicazione: Cooperativa di Costruzioni, Modena,
Italy, 2006 p. 324.
5
Fulvio LANZARONE, «La Gestione dei Beni Culturali. La
Fruibilità dei Contesti Antichi», Atti del Convegno: Arte e
Diversabilità 5-6 dicembre 2006, Sala Conferenze Provincia
Regionale di Palermo (in c. di s.).
Table 27
5. CONCLUSIONS
If we focus our attention on archaeological sites, it seems
evident that the problems of conservation have their origins at
the moment in which the object is opened to the public.
Implicitly, these problems also presuppose the safeguarding the
territory, as this is the depository of testimonies of the past. All
this means that cultural resources need to be identified if they
are to be used but, at the same time, that they should be
safeguarded if they are to be used by future generations. The
aim of safeguarding must, therefore, be concerned with the
integrity of the object, protecting it from possible destruction
both from natural causes (changes in temperature, climate,
weeds, etc.) as well as anthropic ones brought about by the
continuous flow of visitors.
Both fixed and moveable objects in archaeological sites must
therefore, not only be safeguarded but also preserved and used
as tools of generalised knowledge and culture. For this to
happen, as far as the moveable objects are concerned, it is often
necessary to create suitable structures in archaeological sites for
6
Giuseppe DE GIOVANNI, Valorizzazione e fruizione
dell’architettura ritrovata, in Morgantina e Solunto-analisi e
problemi conservativi, Palermo 2001, p. 109.
7
Fulvio LANZARONE, «La Gestione dei Beni Culturali.
La Fruibilità dei Contesti Antichi», Atti del Convegno:
Arte e Diversabilità 5-6 dicembre 2006, Sala Conferenze
Provincia Regionale di Palermo (in c. di s.).
XXI International CIPA Symposium, 01-06 October 2007, Athens, Greece
their conservation. However, at the same time their fruition
should be guaranteed as this has a double value: simple
knowledge and didactic-cultural relevance.
“These structures may just be small antiquariums or, in
archaeological sites of greater public interest, real museums
with more complex communicative mechanisms. The latter
however, must, in conformity with Italian laws in force (D.P.R.
n. 503 of 1996), guarantee the elimination of architectonic
barriers inside the buildings, in external spaces and in the public
services, thus making them useable by everyone.
Problems that were once ignored are, today, a source of debate
and are attracting evermore interest thanks to greater public
awareness.”8.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Atti, al International Conference on VULNERABILITY OF
02TH CENTURY CULTURAL HERITAGE TO HEZARDS
AND PREVENTION MEASURES, promossa da CICOP
Federation, UNESCO, Archeological Istitute of Aegean
Studies, Municipalità of Kos, Aegean University; Kos 3-4-5
October 2005, Pubblicazione: Cooperativa di Costruzioni,
Modena, 2006.
BOBBIO L., Serge LAGACHE, Valéry PATIN (a cura di), La
politica dei beni culturali in Francia, in Le Politiche dei beni
culturali in Europa, Il Mulino, Bologna ,1992.
BOBBIO L., Teresa Romeo GARRE (a cura di), La politica dei
beni culturali in Spagna.
CLARCKE D., traduzione di PINNOCK F., Archeologia
analitica, Electa, Milano, 1998, prima ed.1968.
COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNITÀ EUROPEE, Sostegno
per la conservazione del patrimonio architettonico, Bruxelles,
1992.
CORTESE W., I beni culturali e ambientali- Profili normativi,
Cedam, Padova, 1999
CROSSETTI A., La tutela ambientale dei beni culturali, Cedam,
Padova, 2001.
DIANI M.,La politica dei beni culturali in Gran Bretagna in Le
politiche dei beni culturali in Europa (a cura di) Luigi Bobbio,
Il Mulino, Bologna, 1992.
LANZARONE F., Conservazione dei Beni Culturali, Dario
Flaccovio Editore, Palermo, 2004.
SETTIS S., Italia S.p.A.. L’assalto al patrimonio culturale,
Einaudi, Torino, 2002.
SPOSITO A. et Al., Morgantina e Solunto, Analisi e Problemi
Conservativi, Università degli Studi di Palermo, DPCE,
Palermo, 2001.
SPOSITO A. et Al., Silloge Archeologica, Università degli Studi
di Palermo, DPCE, Palermo, 1999.
TAORMINA F., La tutela del patrimonio artistico italiano,
Giappichelli, Torino, 2001.
8
Fulvio LANZARONE, Ibidem